This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Sediment Transport Modeling Review—Current and Future Developments
Athanasios N. Thanos Papanicolaou
Associate Professor, Univ. of Iowa, IIHR-Hydroscience and Engineering, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Iowa City, IA 52241. E-mail: email@example.com
Research Associate Engineer, Univ. of Iowa, IIHR-Hydroscience and Engineering, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Iowa City, IA 52241. E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
ERM Inc., Exton, PA. E-mail: email@example.com
ERM Inc., Exton, PA
Faculty Research Associate, Bryn Mawr College, Dept. of Geology. E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
The use of computational models for solving sediment transport and fate problems is relatively recent compared with the use of physical models. Several considerations govern the choice between physical and computational models; namely, the nature of the problem that needs to be solved, the available resources, and the overall cost associated with the problem solution. In some speciﬁc problems, a combination of physical and computational models can be used to obtain a better understanding of the processes under investigation de Vries 1973 . Using computational hydrodynamic/sediment transport models, in general, involves the numerical solution of one or more of the governing differential equations of continuity, momentum, and energy of ﬂuid, along with the differential equation for sediment continuity. An advantage of computational models is that they can be adapted to different physical domains more easily than physical models, which are typically constructed to represent site-speciﬁc conditions. Another advantage of computational models is that they are not subject to distortion effects of physical models when a solution can be obtained for the same ﬂow conditions identical Reynolds and Froude numbers, same length scale in the three directions, etc. as those present in the ﬁeld. With the rapid developments in numerical methods for ﬂuid mechanics, computational modeling has become an attractive tool for studying ﬂow/sediment transport and associated pollutant fate processes in such different environments as rivers, lakes, and coastal areas. Representative processes in these environments include bed aggradation and degradation, bank failure, local scour around structures, formation of river bends, ﬁning, coarsening and armoring of streambeds, transport of point source and nonpoint
source pollutant attached to sediments, such sediment exchange processes as settling, deposition, and self-weight consolidation; coastal sedimentation; and beach processes under tidal currents and wave action. Over the past three decades, a large number of computational hydrodynamic/sediment transport models have been developed Fan 1988; Rodi 2006 . Extensive reviews of different hydrodynamic/sediment transport models can be found in Nicollet 1988 , Nakato 1989 , Onishi 1994 , Przedwojski et al. 1995 , Spasojevic and Holly 2000 , and the ASCE Sedimentation Engineering Manual no. 110 2007 . Broadly speaking, these models can be classiﬁed on the basis of the range of their applications e.g., suspended load versus bed-load; physical versus chemical transport ; and their formulation in the spatial and temporal continua e.g., one-dimensional model 1D ; two-dimensional model 2D ; or three-dimensional model 3D ; and steady versus unsteady . The choice of a certain model for solving a speciﬁc problem depends on the nature and complexity of the problem itself, the chosen model capabilities to simulate the problem adequately, data availability for model calibration, data availability for model veriﬁcation, and overall available time and budget for solving the problem. The objectives of this article are twofold. First, the article aims to trace the developmental stages of current representative 1D, 2D, and 3D models and describe their main applications, strengths, and limitations. The article is intended as a ﬁrst guide to readers interested in immersing themselves in modeling and at the same time sets the stage for discussing current limitations and future needs. Second, the article provides insight about future trends and needs with respect to hydrodynamic/sediment transport models. In preparing this article, the authors may have unintentionally omitted some models, since including all the available models found in the literature is impossible. Finally, this article is mainly focused on multidimensional computational models 2D and 3D models ; however, a brief overview of the 1D models is also included for providing a rational comparison of the 1D model features with the main features of the 2D and 3D models.
Description of Models
This section provides information about the model formulation, the spatial and temporal characteristics, the coupling/linkage of the hydrodynamic and sediment components, and the model’s predictive capabilities. Tables 1–3 complement this description by providing useful information about the model capabilities to handle unsteady ﬂows, bed load and suspended load, sediment exchange processes, type of sediment cohesive versus cohesionless , and multifractional sediment transport. Information about model acronyms, language, availability, and distribution is also provided in Tables 1–3. Tables 4–6 summarize examples of the different model applications. The reader can use these case studJOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2008 / 1
Downloaded 12 Jan 2010 to 126.96.36.199. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
Chang 1984 used a curvilinear coordinate system to solve the governing equations of his model. and OTIS by Runkel and Broshears 1991 . P proprietary.Table 1. Some representative models that are developed on the basis of the previously mentioned equations include MOBED by Krishnappan 1981 . 2004 Note: V version. PD public domain. Most of the 1D models that are presented here can predict the basic parameters of a particular channel. 1D models have been used with some success in research and engineering practice. equations or schemes of solution are FLUVIAL 11 by Chang 1984 . 1990 . for example. see http://pubs. FLUVIAL 11 by Chang 1984 accounts for the presence of secondary currents in a curved channel by adjusting the magnitude of the streamwise velocity. 1990 and Downloaded 12 Jan 2010 to 140. and sediment transport load. 4. All of them. width. LD limited distribution. Runkel and Broshears 1991 modiﬁed the 1D advectiondiffusion equation with additional terms to account for lateral inﬂow. except OTIS. 2004 Thomas and Prashum 1977 MOBED: MObile BED. Some of these 1D models have additional speciﬁc features. SEDICOUP by Holly and Rahuel 1990 . 3ST1D by Papanicolaou et al. including the bulkvelocity.48. sorption of nonconservative solutes.105. 2004 . HEC-6 by Thomas and Prashum 1977 .2 Steady Yes Yes Yes No Center. — Quasi-steady Yes Yes Yes No Karim and Kennedy 1982 FLUVIAL 11. 3 Unsteady Yes Yes Yes No transport models for alluvial River 2002 simulation Molinas and Yang. Table 1 contains the complete model reference and acronym explanation and summarizes the main features for each model. Molinas and Yang 1986 implemented the theory of minimum stream power to determine the optimum channel width and ge2 / JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2008 ometry for a given set of hydraulic and sediment conditions. One-Dimensional Models Since the early 1980s. 1986 CHARIMA: Acronym of the word — Unsteady Yes Yes Yes Yes CHARiage which means bedload in French Holly et al. 3ST1D by Papanicolaou et al. and transient storage of these solutes.org/copyright .asce. HEC-6 by Thomas and Prashum 1977 and IALLUVIAL by Karim and Kennedy 1982 are not applicable to unsteady ﬂow conditions. — Unsteady Yes Yes Yes No Krishnappan 1981 IALLUVIAL: Iowa ALLUVIAL. C PD C PD F77 F 77 PD PD F77 C P F90 ies as a reference guide for model setup. and F a Treated as a total load without separation. — Unsteady Yes Yes Yes No Chang 1984 GSTARS: Generalized sediment V. The HEC-6 formulation by Thomas and Prashum 1977 is also presented in a rectilinear coordinate and is discretized by using ﬁnite-difference schemes. OTIS-P Unsteady No Yes No No with inﬂow and storage.199. Summary of Selected 1D Models Last update Bed Suspended sediment sediment Sediment Cohesive transport transport mixtures sediment Sediment exchange processes Entrainment and deposition Entrainment and deposition Entrainment and deposition Entrainment and deposition Entrainment and deposition Source Executable code Language PD PD F77 Model and references Flow HEC-6: Hydraulic Engineering V. 2004 cannot differentiate the total sediment load into bed load and suspended load. GSTARS by Molinas and Yang 1986 . — Unsteady Yes Yes Yes No Holly and Rahuel 1990 OTIS: One-dimensional transport V. CHARIMA by Holly et al. Papanicolaou et al. IALLUVIAL by Karim and Kennedy 1982 . but it solves the differential conservation equation of energy instead of the momentum equation. 1990 SEDICOUP: SEDIment COUPled. Hamrick 2001 a a 3STD1. water surface elevation. Among other 1D models that use different coordinate systems. and lateral migration in channel bends. ﬁrst-order decay. Most of the 1D models are formulated in a rectilinear coordinate system and solve the differential conservation equations of mass and momentum of ﬂow the St. bed-elevation variation. Venant ﬂow equations along with the sediment mass continuity equation the Exner equation by using ﬁnite-difference schemes. calibration. steep stream sediment Yes Yes Yes No — Unsteady Transport 1D model. decomposes energy losses into form loss and skin friction loss. CHARIMA by Holly et al. can also predict the total sediment load and grain size distribution of nonuniform sediment. C copyrighted. and veriﬁcation. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. MOBED by Krishnappan 1981 can predict the sediment characteristics of a streambed as a function of time and distance for different ﬂow hydrographs. 1998 Runkel and Broshears 1991 EFDC1D: Environmental ﬂuid — Unsteady Yes Yes Yes Yes dynamics code. C C C PD C C P PD F90 FIV FIV F90/95 Entrainment and deposition C C F 77 Entrainment and deposition Advectiondiffusion Entrainment and deposition Entrainmentand deposition FORTRAN. The same model can predict changes in the channel bed proﬁle.
Most 2-D models solve the depth-averaged continuity and Navier-Stokes equations along with the sediment mass balance equation with the methods of ﬁnite difference. 2. or ﬁnite volume. 1998 diffusion CCHE2D: The National Center for V.199. Table 4 presents examples of different 1D model applications. Two-Dimensional Models Since the early 1990s. This added capability has made these models user-friendly and popular. 2004 is capable of capturing hydraulic jumps and simulating supercritical ﬂows. 1992 diffusion a a MIKE 21: Danish acronym of the Yes Yes No Yes Entrainment and — Unsteady word microcomputer. Most of the 2D models are currently available to the hydraulic engineering community as interfacebased software to allow easy data input and visualization of results. as well as the magnitude of depth-averaged streamwise and transverse velocity components. 1997 USTARS: Unsteady Sediment — Unsteady Yes Yes Yes No Entrainment and Transport models for Alluvial deposition Rivers Simulations. Bosboom et al. PD public domain. Summary of Selected 2D Model Last update Bed Suspended sediment sediment Sediment Cohesive transport transport mixtures sediment Sediment exchange processes Source code Language C/LD FIV Model and references Flow Executable C a a Yes Yes No Yes AdvectionSERATRA: SEdiment and — Unsteady diffusion RAdionuclide TRAnsport. such as ﬂows over step-pool sequences in mountain streams. LD limited distribution. 1998 FLUVIAL 12. The model can predict overland terrestrial and in-stream pesticide migration and fate to assess the potential short. P proprietary. 2D models are depth-averaged models that can provide spatially varied information about water depth and bed elevation within rivers. C copyrighted. Table 2 shows the complete model reference and explanation of the model acronym and summarizes the characteristics of selected 2D hydrodynamic/sediment transport models. — Unsteady deposition Thomas and McAnally 1985 MOBED2: MObile BED.and long-term impacts on aquatic biota in receiving streams.105. it is applicable to unsteady ﬂow conditions that occur over transcritical ﬂow stream reaches. F FORTRAN. steady van Rijn and Tan 1985 a a Yes Yes No Yes Entrainment and TABS-2.org/copyright . SUTRENCH-2D: A ﬁnite-volume hydrodynamic and sediment transport model developed by van Rijn and Tan 1985 for simuJOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2008 / 3 Downloaded 12 Jan 2010 to 140.Table 2. Onishi and Wise 1982 a a Yes Yes No No AdvectionSUTRENCH. 1997 FAST2D: Flow Analysis Simulation — Unsteady Yes Yes No No Entrainment and Tool.TC: UNIform BEach — Quasiadvection Sediment Transport—Transport steady Cross-shore. see http://pubs. ﬁnite element. 3ST1D by Papanicolaou et al. especially in consulting. Lee et al.asce. therefore. Jia and Wang 1999 Note: V version. for rivers and stream ecological applications where 2D or 3D models may not be needed and are computationally expensive. C LD F90 C C C/LD C C C C/LD P F77 F77 F90 F90 C LD F90 P P F90 LD P F90 C C PD/C P LD LD F77 F90 F77/F90 OTIS by Runkel and Broshears 1991 can treat transport and fate of conservative contaminants and heat. The model includes general advection-diffusion equations and incorporates sink/ source terms. 1D models remain useful predictive tools even today. and simplicity of use.48. — Unsteady Yes Yes Yes No Entrainment and Spasojevic and Holly 1990a deposition a a ADCIRC: ADvanced CIRCulation. The main speciﬁc features of each model are described below: SERATRA: A ﬁnite-element sediment-contaminant transport model developed by Onishi and Wise 1982 . central processor unit CPU requirements. Because of their low data. there has been a shift in computational research toward 2D models. lakes. deposition Minh Duc et al. and estuaries. EFDC1D by Hamrick 2001 can be applied to stream networks. a Treated as a total load without separation. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. — Unsteady Yes Yes Yes No Entrainment and Chang 1998 deposition Delft 2D. deposition Danish Hydraulic Institute 1993 a a Yes Yes No No Entrainment and UNIBEST.2D: SUspended — Quasi diffusion sediment transport in TRENCHes.1 Unsteady Yes Yes Yes No AdvectionComputational Hydroscience and 2001 diffusion Engineering. — Unsteady Yes Yes No Yes AdvectionWalstra et al. — Unsteady Yes Yes No Yes AdvectionLuettich et al.
Summary of Selected 3D Models Last update Bed Suspended sediment sediment Sediment Cohesive transport transport mixtures sediment a Model and references Flow Unsteady Sediment exchange processes Entrainment and deposition Entrainment and deposition Entrainment and deposition Entrainment and deposition Entrainment and deposition Entrainment and deposition Advectiondiffusion Entrainment and deposition Entrainment and deposition Source Executable code Language PD PD F77 ECOMSED: Estuarine. RMA2. 2002 Blumberg and Mellor 1987 RMA-10: Resource Management — Associates. SED2D formally STUDH . C copyrighted. 1992 in a rectilinear coordinate system for simulating large-scale domains e.48. The sediment process models are used to simulate shoreline change and sand transport. 1. RMA4. 1998 Delft 3D. LD limited distribution. 2005 — Yes a Yes No Yes Unsteady a Yes a Yes No Yes C P F77 Unsteady No Yes No Yes NA NA F77 Unsteady Yes Yes Yes Yes PD P F77 Unsteady Yes Yes Yes No LD LD F77 Unsteady Yes Yes Yes Yes C C F90 Steady Yes Yes Yes No PD P C-Langua. 1. sediment transport. ADCIRC-2D: A ﬁnite-element hydrodynamic and sediment transport model developed by Luettich et al.Table 3.0 Intakes with Multiblock options. the sediment transport component. The main components of TABS-2 are the hydrodynamic component. MOBED2: A ﬁnite-difference hydrodynamic and sediment transport model used in a curvilinear coordinate system. 3. Hamrick 1992 ROMS: Regional Ocean Modeling V. see http://pubs.. and V.199. and coastal environments where depth averaging is appropriate.org/copyright . P proprietary. Coastal.25. — Hervouet and Bates 2000 Zeng et al. The wave-continuity formulation of the shallow-water equations is used to solve the time-dependent. Unsteady a Yes a Yes No Yes C P F90 Unsteady Yes Yes No No LD P F90 Entrainment and deposition a Yes No Yes Entrainment and Unsteady aYes deposition Unsteady Yes Yes No No Entrainment and deposition Note: V version. These codes are applicable to rivers.1 Simulation Tool. 2002 Song and Haidvogel 1994 CH3D-SED: Computational — Hydraulics 3D-SEDiment. and the environmental hydrodynamic model groups. the hydrodynamic and wave models. 2006 Olsen 1994 MIKE 3: Danish acronym of the — word Microcomputer. King 1988 GBTOXe: Green Bay TOXic — enhancement. reservoirs. F FORTRAN. the entire East Coast of the United States by using 2D equations 4 / JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2008 for the “external mode” but using the “internal mode” for obtaining detailed velocity and stress at localized areas. V. Spasojevic and Holly 1994 SSIIM: Sediment Simulation In V. and the water quality component. a Treated as a total load without separation. 1992 EFDC3D: Environmental Fluid — Dynamics code. the sediment process model. whereas the environmental hydrodynamic models are used to examine water quality issues.105.00 Delft Hydraulics 1999 2005 TELEMAC.2 System.g. UNIBEST-TC2: A ﬁnite-difference hydrodynamic and sediment transport model in a rectilinear coordinate system to describe the hydrodynamic processes of waves and currents in the cross-shore direction by assuming the presence of uniform mean Downloaded 12 Jan 2010 to 140. The hydrodynamic and wave models are relevant to the types of physical processes considered in ﬂoodplain mapping.3 Ocean Model—SEDiment transport. Unsteady Yes Yes No Yes C C P LD P P F77 F90 F90 lating sediment transport and associated bed level change under conditions of combined quasi-steady currents and wind-induced waves over a sediment bed. The internal mode is achieved by specifying the momentum dispersion and the bottom shear stress in terms of the vertical velocity proﬁle. 1998 Landsberg et al. developed by Spasojevic and Holly 1990a . and bed evolution in natural waterways such as reservoirs. The model can simulate water ﬂow. estuaries. and estuaries.asce. free-surface circulation and transport processes.9.7. TABS-2: A group of ﬁnite-element based hydrodynamic and sediment transport computer codes developed by the USACE Waterways Experimental Station Thomas and McAnally 1985 that currently operates by using the SMS v. Jacobsen and Rasmussen 1997 FAST3D: Flow Analysis V.0 windows interface. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. PD public domain. Bierman et al. MIKE2: A ﬁnite-difference model in a rectilinear coordinate system developed by the Danish Hydraulic Institute 1993 for simulating transport and fate of dissolved and suspended loads discharged or accidentally spilled in lakes. 2. The model solves the general advection-diffusion equations by incorporating a lag coefﬁcient to account for the settling of sediments. The system consists of four main model groups modules . coastal areas. or in the open sea. estuaries. namely. Beta-1.
using the slug of rhodamine data of Laenen and Risley 1997 Simulation of the ﬂow and sediment transport processes in the Duwamish River and Elliott Bay. Delaware USEPA 2000 Prediction of the grain size distribution and bed morphology of the Cocorotico River.org/copyright . FLUVIAL 12. The model can simulate bed-load and suspended load transport by using either a local equilibrium or a nonequilibrium i. 2006 MOBED. Northern California Chang 1985 Prediction of the scour depth and pattern at the Lock and Dam No. DELFT-2D and FAST2D can also separate the total sediment load into bedload and susJOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2008 / 5 Downloaded 12 Jan 2010 to 140. All models can predict the total sediment transport load. 2004 . Washington Schock et al. Runkel and Broshears 1991 EFDC1D. 1997 . The hydrodynamic and sediment equations are solved with a ﬁnite-difference scheme in a rectilinear coordinate system.. the theory of minimum stream power is used here to determine the optimum channel width and geometry for a given set of hydraulic. Southern California Chang 1984 Simulation of ﬂow and sediment processes of the San Lorenzo River. and man-made constraints. Randall to Gavins Point Dam. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Canada Krishnappan 1985 Prediction of ﬁne sediment transport under ice cover in the Hay River in Northwest Territories. Germany Otto 1999 Long-term modeling of the morphology of the Danube River. Molinas and Yang 1986 CHARIMA. sediment transport. Holly and Rahuel 1990 OTIS. see http://pubs. Holly et al. Prediction of the grain size distribution and bed-load rate of the Alec River. The model accounts for the secondary ﬂow effect in curved channels. and CCHE2D can handle multifractional sediment transport and can decompose the total sediment load into bedload and suspended load. Canada Simulation of ﬂow and sediment processes in the Missouri River. 1998 Development of a water quality model for the Christina River. 1997 . 1990 SEDICOUP. DELFT-2D: A ﬁnite-difference hydrodynamic and sediment transport model simulating waves and currents Walstra et al. except SUTRENCH-2D by van Rijn and Tan 1985 and UNIBEST-TC2 by Bosboom et al. Venezuela Papanicolaou et al.g. sediment. Alaska Papanicolaou et al. The model couples the hydrodynamics with computed bottom morphological changes in a time-dependent way. but only MOBED2. South Dakota Corps of Engineers Mobile-bed dynamics in the Missouri River from Gavins Point Dam to Rulo. Nebraska Karim and Kennedy 1982 Simulation of ﬂow and sediment processes downstream of the Gavins Point Dam on the Missouri River. Krishnappan 1981 IALLUVIAL. Department of Interior.S. Nebraska National Science Foundation Modeling of long-term effects of rehabilitation measures on bed-load transport at the Lower Salzach River. Thomas and Prashum 1977 Applications Prediction of the ﬂow and sediment transport along with the bed level change of the Saskatchewan River below Gardiner Dam.199. and sediment bed composition induced by the channel curvature. California. FAST2D: A ﬁnite-volume hydrodynamic and sediment model with boundary-ﬁtted grids in a curvilinear coordinate system to simulate sediment transport and morphodynamic problems in alluvial channels Minh Duc et al. The combined effects of ﬂow hydraulics. New Mexico Yang and Simões 2000 Mobile-bed dynamics in the Missouri River from Ft. USTARS.e. Chang 1984 GSTARS. Illinois Yang et al. Germany Belleudy 1992 Simulation of ﬁeld experiments conducted by Bencala and Walters 1983 for the change in chloride concentration of the Uvas Creek. 26 replacement site on the Mississippi River. Hamrick 2001 3STD1. 1989 Prediction of the variation in channel geometry for the unlined spillway downstream Lake Mescalero Reservoir. width.48. The model can also show the effects of wave motion on transport magnitude and direction.. 1997 . The model is a mobile-bed model and simulates changes in the channel-bed proﬁle. Karim and Kennedy 1982 FLUVIAL 11. Estimation of the travel times and mixing characteristics of the Clackamas River.asce. The model simulates the suspended sediment by solving the advection-diffusion equation and the bed-load transport by empirical functions e.Table 4. CCHE2D: A ﬁnite-element hydrodynamic and sediment model developed by Jia and Wang 1999 . the lag effects between ﬂow and sediment approach. Canada Krishnappan 1985 Prediction of the bed proﬁle for the eroded and redeposited delta sediment upstream from Glines Canyon Dam. The model accounts indirectly for secondary effects attributed to the complexity of the domain. Papanicolaou et al. Oregon. geomorphologic. 1998 . The bed load and suspended load transport processes are modeled by assuming local equilibrium conditions no lag effects are considered between ﬂow and sediment . FLUVIAL 12: A ﬁnite-difference hydrodynamic and sediment model in a curvilinear coordinate system developed by Chang 1998 . 1998 . and river channel changes can be simulated for a given ﬂow period. Washington U. Applications for Selected 1D Models Model and references HEC-6. Bureau of Reclamation 1996 Comparison of MOBED results with HEC-6 results for the ﬂow and sediment transport along with the bed-level change for the Saskatchewan River below Gardiner Dam. van Rijn 1993 . Yalin 1972. As in GSTARS. 2004 longshore currents along the beach Bosboom et al.105. Nebraska Karim 1985 Simulation of ﬂow and sediment processes of the San Dieguito River. USTARS: A modiﬁed form of GSTARS that is also based on the stream tube concept Lee et al. All the aforementioned models are applicable to unsteady ﬂow conditions.
1997 Routing of ﬂow and sediment of the Shiemen Reservoir. ﬁnite ele6 / JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2008 ment. 1996 Simulation of sand transport processes and associated bed-level changes along dredged pits and trenches at the lower Dutch coast. 1997 USTARS. parallel computing. Thomas and McAnally 1985 MOBED2. Iowa Spasojevic and Holly 1990b Simulation of the ﬂow and sediment transport processes of the natural cap in the Matagorda Bay. river bends containing hydraulic structures . Ruther and Olsen 2005 . see http://pubs. Germany Minh Duc et al. Caspian Sea Niyyati and Maraghei 2002 Simulation of the ﬂow and sediment transport processes in the Black Lake. Bosboom et al. 2000. Alaska Papanicolaou et al.Table 5.g. Northern California Chang et al. With the latest developments in computing technology—such as computational speed. The Netherlands Walstra et al. 1998 Modeling sediment transport and coastline development along the Iranian coast. Luettich et al. Poland Beck et al. 1998 FLUVIAL 12.org/copyright .. Taiwan Lee et al. Chang 1998 Delft 2D. and data storage classiﬁcation—3D hydrodynamic/sediment transport models have become much more attractive to use.g. Wu et al. The Netherlands Edge 2004 Prediction of the spreading of dredged spoils in the Øresund Link. Gessler et al. 1998 CCHE2D.g.. 2006 Evaluation of the hydraulic performance of different structures found in the Missouri River for creating new shallow water habitat Papanicolaou and Elhakeem 2006 Simulation of mobile-bed dynamics in the Coralville Reservoir on the Iowa River.48. 1999 are not able to accurately predict ﬂow and transport phenomena in regions where the ﬂow is strongly 3D and where large adverse pressure gradients or massive separation are present e. Danish Hydraulic Institute 1993 UNIBEST. Denmark-Sweden Prediction of sediment transport rate at ebb ﬂow in a tidal inlet. 1998 Simulation of the ﬂow ﬁeld and sediment transport processes of the Pannerdense Kop and IJssel Kop bifurcations in the Rhine River. Walstra et al. 1997 FAST2D. or ﬁnite-volume. upstream Tan-Hsui River. Three-Dimensional Models In many hydraulic engineering applications. The Netherlands Sloff 2004 Investigation of the effects of the rock pile and the submerged dikes downstream of the Lock and Dam No. one has to resort to 3D models when 2D models are not suitable for describing certain hydrodynamic/sediment transport processes. 2 of the Red River Waterway.. Mississippi Wu et al. Flows in the vicinity of piers and near hydraulic structures are examples in which 3D ﬂow structures are ubiquitous and in which 2D models do not adequately represent the physics. Jia and Wang 1999 pended load. New York Walters et al. and sediment transport model in an orthogonal cur- Downloaded 12 Jan 2010 to 140. Examples of the different 2D model applications are summarized in Table 5.TC. Table 3 shows the complete model reference and explanation of the acronym and summarizes the characteristics of 12 selected 3D hydrodynamic/sediment transport models. Most 3D models solve the continuity and the Navier-Stokes equations. Applications for Selected 2D Models Model and references SERATRA. Southern California Chang 1994 Simulation of ﬂow and sediment processes of the Feather River. 1998 Flood analysis and mitigation on the Orlice River. 1982 Simulation of the hydrogeochemical behavior of radionuclides released to the Pripyat and Dnieper rivers from the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine Voitsekhovitch et al. The Netherlands Simulation of sand transport processes and associated bed-level changes of a reach in the Keelung River. but they are limited to uniform sediment sizes. van Rijn and Tan 1985 TABS-2. 1994 Simulation of sand transport processes and associated bed-level changes along dredged pits and trenches at the lower Dutch coast. Taiwan Lee et al.105. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright.1997 Simulation of sediment transport processes and associated bed level changes of a reach in the Bavarian Danube River.199. The Reynolds average Navier-Stokes RANS approach has been employed to solve the governing equations. 2003 Simulation of ﬂow and sediment processes of the San Dieguito River. Malaysia Coastal study for shoreline protection of Texel region. Grådyb. wave. Minh Duc et al. nonhydrostatic RANS models have been shown to adequately describe intricate features of secondary ﬂows in complex domains e. 1992 MIKE 21. Louisiana Investigation of the effects of large woody debris structures on the ﬂuvial processes in the Little Topashaw Creek. On the contrary. Texas Edge 2004 Simulation of sand transport processes at Scheveningen Trial Trench. The Netherlands Walstra et al. Onishi and Wise 1982 Applications Investigation of the effects of sediment on the transport of radionuclides in Cattaraugus and Buttermilk Creeks. The RANS models can be separated into hydrostatic and nonhydrostatic models. The hydrostatic models e. Denmark Coastal study for the impacts of constructing Kelantan Harbor. 2005 SUTRENCH-2D. Spasojevic and Holly 1990a ADCIRC. The main speciﬁc features of each model are described below: ECOMSED: A fully integrated 3D ﬁnite-difference hydrodynamic. along with the sediment mass balance equation through the methods of ﬁnite difference.asce. Lee et al.
e. EFDC3D: A ﬁnite-difference hydrodynamic and water-quality constituent transport model in an orthogonal curvilinear or rectilinear coordinate system with a sigma or stretched approximation in the vertical direction Hamrick 1992 . GBTOXe: A ﬁnite-difference model that is formulated in a rectilinear coordinate system and is developed for predicting transport and fate of PCBs in riverine environments. 1992 EFDC3D.. turbulent averaged equations of motion for a variable density ﬂuid. lakes. Bierman et al.105. The model solves the transport equation for salinity. whereas the sediment transport component GBSED accounts for the transport of cohesive sediment. sediment transport processes.C. Landsberg et al. such as vertically mixed shallow estuaries.. California Evaluation of the relative impact of different sediment sources on the shore areas of the western basin of Lake Erie. The model solves the 3D. and suspended sediment and incorporates the effect of these quantities on density.org/copyright . Wisconsin Modeling of the hydrodynamic and sediment processes in Moro Bay. 2005 vilinear coordinate system developed by Blumberg and Mellor 1987 . It is designed for water bodies in which vertical accelerations can be considered negligible hydrostatic pressure assumption is considered . Wisconsin Bierman et al. ROMS: A ﬁnite-difference model in an orthogonal curvilinear coordinate system with sigma-stretched approximation in the vertical direction Song and Haidvogel 1994 . 1998 Delft 3D. Delft Hydraulics 1999 TELEMAC.Table 6. 1995 Simulation of transport and Fate of Toxic Chemicals in Shasta Reservoir. and water quality of Tampa Bay. and distributaries on the lower Mississippi River and Atchafalaya River. California Gu and Chung 2003 Tested against the experimental data of Odgaard and Bergs 1988 RMA-10. Applications for Selected 3D Models Model and references ECOMSED. CH3D-SED: A boundary-ﬁtted ﬁnite-difference model in the JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2008 / 7 Downloaded 12 Jan 2010 to 140. free surface. Texas HydroQual 1998 Simulation of the ﬂow and sediment transport processes of the Klarälven River east and west channels at the bifurcation. Blumberg and Mellor 1987 Applications Simulation of the ﬂow and sediment transport processes of Lavaca Bay. Hervouet and Bates 2000 Zeng et al. 1992 . there is an effort to incorporate the EFDC3D code into BASINS. Sweden Admass 2005 Modeling of the Nisqually River Delta to evaluate habitat restoration alternatives. Florida Tested against the experimental data of Odgaard and Bergs 1988 Simulation of contaminated regions resulting from hypothetical airborne agent releases in major urban areas at Washington D. California Simulation of ﬂow and sediment transport of Lake Hartwell reservoir on the Savannah River between South Carolina and Georgia Modeling of sediment transport and estuary turbidity maximum of the Hudson River Estuary. The model is limited to uniform sediment. Oregon Simulation of the ﬂow. an EPA open-source watershed model that links terrestrial i. 1999 Simulation of sedimentation on bends. The hydrodynamic component of the model GBHYDRO assumes hydrostatic pressure and accounts for water column circu- lation and mixing processes. Maryland. RMA10 is a component of TABS-MD multi-dimensional . and coastal areas. and Chicago. The model is suited for computing the hydrodynamics in tidal ﬂats and wetlands. Spasojevic and Holly 1994 SSIIM. Lousiana Tested against experimental data from Colorado State University Olsen 2003 Simulation of the ﬂow. New York Simulation of ﬂow and sediment quality of the Southern California Bight. Olsen 1994 MIKE 3. Jacobsen and Rasmussen 1997 FAST3D. Washington Modeling the hydrodynamics of ﬂow and sediment of the Los Angeles and Long Beach harbors California Tetra Tech 2004 Simulation of fate and transport of PCBs in Green Bay. Hamrick 1992 ROMS. Currently. temperature.asce. 2005 Simulation of the ﬂow. North Carolina Delft Hydraulics 1999 Development of a mesoscale hydrodynamic and sediment transport model for the Peru Basin in the Southeast Paciﬁc Ocean Zielke et al. The model can simulate complex water bodies. The model uses the hydrostatic pressure distribution assumption and can predict fate and transport processes in large water bodies such as lakes and oceans. Ohio Velissariou et al. see http://pubs. Song and Haidvogel 1994 CH3D-SED.48. RMA10: A ﬁnite-element hydrodynamic model for computing water-surface elevations and horizontal velocity components for stratiﬁed free-surface ﬂow King 1988 . Illinois Pullenet al. Hong Kong Delft Hydraulics 1999 Morphodynamic modeling of the German Wadden Sea and Duck.199. crossings. and water quality of Upper Klamath Lake. vertically hydrostatic. sediment transport processes and water quality of Tolo Harbor and Mirs Bay. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. The model has also capabilities to predict toxic contaminants and water quality state variables. The model was originally developed for addressing the fate and transport issues of PCBs in Green Bay. uplands and in-stream models. The model can simulate free-surface hydrostatic ocean circulation and parameterizes the effect of surface waves on bottom stresses and apparent roughness. sediment transport processes. King 1988 GBTOXe.
105. whereas the other models are applicable to uniform sediment only.. and turbidity currents. The last reason is beyond the scope of this forum article. ROMS by Song and Haidvogel 1994 . ﬂooding and drying of intertidal areas. MIKE3 by the Danish Hydraulic Institute 1993 . deposition. The model can simulate the fate and transport of conservative or linearly decaying constituents. which rely heavily on experimental and ﬁeld information and whose formulations involve a high degree of empiricism. Except for the SSIIM model by Olsen 1994 . As a consequence.org/copyright . SSIIM: A ﬁnite volume hydrodynamic and sediment transport model that is based on an unstructured grid system Olsen 1994 . DELFT3D: An integrated modeling system developed by the Delft Hydraulic Laboratory team that is solved through the ﬁnitedifference scheme Delft Hydraulics 1999 . and sorption. all the aforementioned models are applicable to unsteady ﬂow conditions. The hydrodynamic submodel calculates nonsteady ﬂow resulting from tidal and meteorological forcing on a boundary-ﬁtted curvilinear grid system. ECOMSED by Blumberg and Mellor 1987 . heavy metals.nonorthogonal coordinate system with a sigma-stretched approximation in the vertical direction Spasojevic and Holly 1994 . The model can handle complex geometric domains mainly because of the added capabilities that are provided by an efﬁcient parallel implementation of the virtual cell embedding VCE algorithms. water quality. However. the model solves the advectiondiffusion equation with additional terms to account for transient storage. at the present stage. eutrophication. and ecology . waves. It includes the modeling of meandering and bed forms in rivers and bed load and suspended load transport of nonuniform sediment and associated sorting and armoring processes. lateral inﬂow. They include oversimpliﬁcation of the problem by using an inappropriate model 1D versus 2D or 2D versus 3D . unfamiliarity with the limitations of the hydrodynamic/sediment transport equations used in developing the model. heat exchange with the atmosphere. meandering in rivers. Chaudhry 1993. FAST3D: A fully nonhydrostatic 3D ﬁnite-volume hydrodynamic model Landsberg et al. lack of appropriate data for model calibration. This model allows multiple chemical species sharing a single velocity ﬁeld. MIKE3: A ﬁnite-difference model in an orthogonal grid system developed by the Danish Hydraulic Institute 1993 for free surface ﬂows. A few examples of the different 3D model applications are summarized in Table 6. The proper kinematic and dynamic conditions are imposed to account for changes in the bathymetry because of ero8 / JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2008 sion or deposition at the bed. However. all of them can predict the total sediment load. 1998 . Also. Zeng et al. Discussion and Future Research Discrepancies between hydrodynamic/sediment transport model predictions and measurements can be attributed to different causes. The model has also been used for water quality and habitat studies in rivers.199. no reliable and comprehensive theoretical formulas can describe the two-phase phenomenon of sediment and ﬂow. The modeling system contains several submodels that simulate the temporal and spatial variation of six processes ﬂow. A hydrogen-oxygen induction parameter reduced chemistry model is also included in FAST3D. including such processes as nutrient cycling. sediment transport. The suspended sediment is modeled by using an advection-diffusion equation with a settling velocity term.g.asce. This study concluded that most of the 1D models assume that a stage of equilibrium exists with respect to sediment transport and that the nature of sediment entrainment is deterministic and not a stochastic process. Tannehill et al. morphology.48. Downloaded 12 Jan 2010 to 140. ﬁrst-order decay. 2005 model: A nonhydrostatic fully 3D model in generalized curvilinear coordinates that is solved through the ﬁnite-difference scheme. Except GBTOXe by Bierman et al. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. head loss in tunnels. For the water quality component. therefore. An explanation for this is that the eddy viscosity models that are frequently used in solving the governing hydrodynamic equations of turbulent ﬂows include some degree of empiricism in their formulations. The sediment component of the model accounts for nonequilibrium bed-load rate and advection-diffusion–based suspended load rate Wu et al. a high-order–high-resolution algorithm. and entrainment. The model has the capability of simulating sediment transport in a movable riverbed with complex geometries. 1997 . the use of inappropriate input data. It includes modeling components for advectiondiffusion. Anderson 1995. and computational errors in source codes because of approximations in the numerical schemes used in solving the governing equations boundary condition problems/truncation errors because of discretization . The sedimentation component is based on solving the sediment mass balance equation for bedload along with the advection-diffusion equation for suspended load transport. and SSIIM by Olsen 1994 have the capabilities to predict the gradation of sediment mixtures. inherent model limitations do not allow accurate simulation of a process independently of data input and model calibration. The model has been extended to such other hydraulic engineering applications as spillway modeling. and sediment processes Jacobsen and Rasmussen 1997 . and sediment transport. The solver uses movable grids in the vertical direction to account for changes in the free-surface elevation. 1992 . The underlying ﬂuid dynamics algorithm used in FAST3D is the ﬂux-corrected transport FCT . RMA10 by King 1988 . exchange of metals between the bed sediments and the water column. The problem is compounded for sediment transport models. both hydrodynamic and sediment equations will include such computational errors. 2000 . water quality. and techniques needed to minimize these computational errors can be found in computational ﬂuid dynamics textbooks e. that Dawdy and Vanoni 1986 in their examination of some of the available 1D hydrodynamic/ sediment transport models concluded that most of the movable bed models were found not to yield wholly satisfactory results. CH3D-SED by Spasojevic and Holly 1994 . 2D and 3D hydrodynamic/sediment transport models typically encounter problems in determining the reference concentration of sediment near the bed and simulating the term for sediment diffusion because of turbulent motion. see http://pubs. TELEMAC-3D: A ﬁnite-element hydrodynamic and transport model for free-surface boundary condition to characterize the fate and transport in coastal zones Hervouet and Bates 2000 . Only EFDC3D by Hamrick 1992 . The model solves the governing equations by integrating them up to the near-wall boundary to avoid any near-wall approximations. It is not surprising. In many applications. and TELEMAC-3D by Hervouet and Bates 2000 cannot separate the total sediment load into bedload and suspended load. dissolved oxygen levels. the users of the multidimensional models experience difﬁculties in determining the source term of the advection-diffusion equation and the effects of sediment motion on near-bed turbulent ﬂow characteristics.
Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. however. 3D models should be used to simulate ﬂow in smaller scales where detailed mapping of the turbulent microstructure is required. The recent boom in sensor technology for in-stream ﬂow and JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2008 / 9 Downloaded 12 Jan 2010 to 140. Simpliﬁed models run into the risk of not obtaining a reliable solution. The following question arises: Do these data exist. As a result. stages. b illustration of spatial and temporal scales adapted from Church 2006 In subsequent sections. obtained through acoustic Doppler velocimeter ADV or acoustic Doppler current proﬁler ADCP . Although a deﬁnitive answer to this question does not exist. may not be sufﬁcient for model calibration and veriﬁcation because the ﬂow distribution at a cross section changes in time because of bed-form propagation. whereas increasing the model complexity can complicate the problem formulation and incur more input data preparation. calibration. 1 b shows. Figure 1 b implies that.199. Model Input and Calibration Model input and calibration give rise to new demands on ﬁeld data. bed morphology and velocity. it is probable that a greater differential exists between the information needed and the information available than in almost any other practical engineering hydraulic ﬁeld. Dynamic scale processes. Despite the importance of the subject. As Fig. the following discussion may aid in an appropriate response. This ﬁnding goes hand in hand with the realization that the use of 3D models to simulate basin-scale processes may not be realistic because it currently is a very costly endeavor at the present. Transport of sediment is one of the most important and difﬁcult classes of processes encountered by the hydraulic engineer. In general. especially in a dynamic mobile environment.asce. grain size distribution. users need to follow some rules of thumb. Traditional measurement protocols of bed bathymetry.Fig. or can they be collected within the constraints of time and money? Although this question is a pragmatic one.105. Morphologic scale changes at the basin or catchment scale length scale greater than 104 m typically occur in a 1-year period or greater. the authors will attempt to provide an insight for model users about model choice and also highlight the future research needs for improving available hydrodynamic/ sediment transport models. In addition. calibration of mobile bed models on the basis of limited spatial data can be questionable. Fig. traditional measurement protocols are adequate under conditions that are closely represented by static conditions. A reference time scale for these processes ranges from seconds to an hour. occur at smaller length scales such as channel reach and sediment particle scale. a direct correspondence exists between the time scale and the length scale.org/copyright . 1 b gives a guideline for simulating processes of different spatial and temporal scales Church 2006 . As a consequence. 1. and shear stress distributions using point or cross-sectional measurements are applicable to a limited spatial and temporal resolution and hinder adequate model calibration and veriﬁcation. Factors governing model choice: a the model complexity trade-off diagram adapted from Overton and Meadows 1976 . Model Choice It should be accepted that sediment transport models incorporate a certain degree of simpliﬁcation to be computationally feasible. point or cross-sectional measurements in a riverine environment with mobile bed. the role of turbulence is important. and veriﬁcation costs. see http://pubs. 1 a has been discussed by Overton and Meadows 1976 and Simons and Simons 1996 . Thus far. Also. for simulation of ﬂow at the reach scale or around an obstacle. Such a trade-off between complexity and cost Fig. a model should be chosen in the way that the model hydrodynamic/sediment components retain all relevant terms related to a speciﬁc problem. One practical question that model users typically face is the choice of the appropriate dimensional model. For example. a 1D or 2D model may be sufﬁcient to simulate these changes.48.
Pavlovic et al.g. Papanicolaou et al. Simulation of the sediment transport processes remains open to future research because sediment transport is not only controlled by randomness in ﬂow but also by irregularities in landform and bed surface geometry e. considering that this method is limited to low Reynolds numbers. however. ﬂow around groynes. perturbations that exist in the system because of spatial and temporal variability in the terrestrial environment are not accounted for. Undoubtedly. Almadeij and Diplas 2005 . Modeling of turbulence is probably the weakest component in the hydrodynamic equations of ﬂow. As the discipline of computational ﬂuid and mobile bed dynamics evolves at a time when computational and sensor technologies are drastically improving. veriﬁcation. This control loop is not currently available for simulating natural ﬂows because of the limited data that can be obtained from traditional measurement protocols. be fully realized. Hence. they are criticized as “postdiction” rather than “prediction” because of the loss of information occurring from averaging the equations. shear stress is determined by assuming uniform ﬂow conditions e. and special near-wall treatment has to be introduced to account for the smaller-scale structures. 2001 .48. excess shear stress models.g.org/copyright .. advances made in the DNS and LES arena allow the realistic prediction of complex turbulent ﬂows around structures such as ﬂow in ﬁsh ladders of hydroelectric dams. as compared with the fundamentals of sediment transport e. Raudkivi 1998. and ejections are the primary triggering mechanisms of sediment entrainment Papanicolaou et al. Tannehill et al. Both DNS and LES are principally better suited for simulating complex turbulent ﬂows. calibration. Recent studies have shown that turbulent sweeps. 2000. DNS requires enormous computing resources and thus is not a method that can be used for an everyday engineering problem Rodi 2006 . 1985 . Since the early 1980s. In most entrainment formulas. Lai et al. as all turbulent ﬂuctuations are averaged out from the equations solved. Different grid reﬁnement criteria to simulate ﬂow and sediment dynamics may produce equally viable mobile bed responses for a given problem. Furthermore. it is likely to underpredict or overpredict the transport rate of individual fractions when bimodal or multimodal distributions are present atop the surface bed e. outward interactions. 2004 . Then and only then can the calibration and veriﬁcation of models. Nevertheless. multidimensional—and especially 3D—models move closely approximate the complex processes occurring in waterways. ﬂood plains. and veriﬁcation.g. 1999 . are grid-independent tests necessary and practical? Can a coarse grid lead to misleading results? What is the optimum grid size for capturing turbulence-resolving scales? These questions have no universal answers. Several questions may be raised. 2003 . The smaller-scale coherent structures that are believed to control the momentum and mass exchange directed from and to the riverbed cannot be resolved directly with LES.. the sediment transport models developed thus far are not as universal as a hydraulic engineer would like them to be. However. Despite the limitations that LES may have especially for high Reynolds numbers. and ﬂow around bridge structures e. many simulations work in the batch mode. Holly and Usseglio-Polatera 1984. Another issue that closely relates to the symbiotic relationship between mobile bed models and sensors is the issue of grid reﬁnement and grid sensitivity.. For example. construction. most multidimensional models treat ﬂow and sediment processes as entirely Downloaded 12 Jan 2010 to 140. 1997. On the contrary.sediment measurements. Usseglio-Polatera and Cunge 1985. For example.105. settling velocity models has been to calculate the transport rate by using a single characteristic grain size. LES is the most advanced modeling tool currently available for modeling 3D complex ﬂows Mahesh et al. DNS can be a valuable research resource for studying the transition between laminar and turbulent ﬂow. The traditional approach in sediment transport models e.g.. Improved computing facilities signiﬁcantly reduce computational requirements and at the same time allow better grid reﬁnement. Model Limitations It has been pointed out that a mismatch exists in the theoretical foundations and performance of the hydrodynamic and sediment components of models. The recent boom in sensor technology can ﬁll the gap between simulation and measurement needs. may alleviate some of the limitations regarding model data input. one must rely on the known notion of good engineering judgment. it is imperative that all of us prepare the ground for incorporating multidimensional models into engineering practice. and grid reﬁnement. Nino and Garcia 1996.asce.g. and it is anticipated that they will become the models of the near future. The disparity that exists between the hy10 / JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2008 drodynamic and sediment transport components is attributed to the fact that the principles of hydrodynamics and the fundamentals of turbulence theory and modeling have been established over the previous two decades. Parker et al. The absence of a symbiotic relationship between measurements and simulation is another important factor that needs further investigation and relates to model calibration. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. The novel capabilities to be sought in the future are applications of simulations that can dynamically accept responses to on-line ﬁeld data and measurements and/or control such measurements. Gomez and Church 1989. However. LES can be used at low and high Reynolds numbers. an event is simulated on the basis of a static set of ﬁeld data. occurring in a dynamic fashion. As a result. 1D models have been used heavily for simulating large spatial scales covering the order of 100s of kms over a long period of time of the order of decades . On account of these factors. developments in computer capabilities have recently advanced the use of 2D and 3D models in natural environments for simulating ﬂow/sediment transport processes and fate of their associated pollutants. LES can capture the largerscale turbulent structures eddies on a given grid by employing the 3D unsteady Navier-Stokes equations. Ultimately.. This synergistic and symbiotic feedback control loop between simulation and measurements is a novel technical direction that can open domains in the capabilities of simulations within riverine/estuarine environments and facilitate capturing episodic and catastrophic events. Some of the limitations that most sediment transport models exhibit can be summarized as follows: One assumption is that sediment entrainment is not triggered by the near bed ﬂow turbulent characteristics but by the excess shear stress term − c . such as the median Raudkivi 1998 .. see http://pubs.199. Rodi 2006 . Because this approach does not account for differential transport of sediment particles with different size or density . Although the RANS models are computationally effective. and other disturbance references. At high Reynolds numbers.g. hydrodynamic/sediment transport models to predict morphodynamic changes within streams and the impact of these changes on aquatic life are conducted by considering a constant sediment input value from such terrestrial inputs as roads. the riverine/ estuarine community has to adopt the symbiotic existence of sensors and models to ensure adequate model calibration and veriﬁcation.
“Machine learning approach to modeling sediment transport. The formulation of the sediment-ﬂow interaction processes needs further investigation Lyn 1992 . Inc. New York. 2003 . In parallel with the research in sediment transport. especially in cases where too little data are available for calibrating traditional sediment transport models. Professors Leo van Rijn and Dirk-Jan Walstra from WL/Delft Hydraulics. 1992 . 1992 .. and Walters. Recognition of the fact that a sediment particle of an certain size or density can be transported at different rates has led to the development of formulations that predict multifractional transport rates Raudkivi 1998 . Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Greimann et al.asce. Beck. Parker et al. Symp. Professor Nils Olsen from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. the role of relative submergence on the estimation of the dispersion coefﬁcient has not been assessed Tayfur and Singh 2005 .. 1996 .. 440–450. B. Res. 2002. such as the stress tensor attributable to phase interactions or the interfacial momentum transfer term... biogeochemical tracers.uncoupled or semicoupled within one computational time step or even during a sequence of time steps in some cases . Both of these assumptions are questionable in the case of high sediment concentrations. It has been shown that the spatially averaged inner and outer quantities may not be good approximations of the dispersion process in channel constrictions or expansions and ﬂows near submerged or unsubmerged obstacles hydraulic structures . Recent attempts to formulate general mathematical models of sediment-ﬂow interaction have been inspired by the progress made in two-phase ﬂow modeling in other ﬁelds e. E.” LIC 2028. These methods offer an alternative to traditional sediment transport modeling. depth-averaged velocity. P. AV0Z2060917. et al. K. Papanicolaou et al. require additional modeling to achieve system closure. input and assistance that they have provided: Professor Forrest Holly from the University of Iowa. Furthermore. Fox et al. on River Sedimentation. Thomas and McAnally 1985... and mean ﬂow depth is limited. Hydraul.” Eos. D. References Admass. The stress coming from interactions among sediment particles is neglected under the assumption that sediment particles do not contact one another. further investigation is required on the role of grid reﬁnement and grid sensitivity and the required amount of data for mobile bed model calibration and veriﬁcation. Charles Kirsty. Crowe et al. Finally. J. Dr. Professor Wolfgang Rodi from the University of Karlsruhe.199. Bhattacharya. and their inclusion into future sediment transport modeling can perhaps improve the predictive ability of these models.. Computational ﬂuid dynamics. Almedeij. The studies of Collins et al.org/copyright . Patrick Delaney. Bencala. 86 44 .. 1996. Bierman. Cao et al.” Water Resour. 1998 . especially near the bed.g. Germany. Acknowledgments The writers would like to acknowledge the following individuals for the guidance. Ni et al. and other related methods have emerged Bhattacharya et al. certain terms in the two-phase ﬂow governing equations.” 5th Int. P. and others reveal that new technologies—such as Lidar. width of channel. R. Ishii 1975. 19 3 .b . École Polytechnique Fédérale de Laussane. Furthermore. such as the interfacial momentum transfer. 1999 is to formulate governing conservation equations for both phases. and Karen Edelvang from the DHI. 2002. M. P. “FLAMOR—Flood analysis and mitigation on the Orlice River. and Solomatine. 429–434. Certain terms in the governing equations that are typically neglected in other ﬁelds may require quite a different treatment in the ﬂow-sediment ﬁeld. A. so that the inﬂuence of changes in bed elevation and surface bed material size distribution on the ﬂow ﬁeld can be taken into account only approximately e. Pierre Lang from Sogreah/ LHF. In most cases. the friction velocity. which include terms deﬁning interaction between phases.g. Villaret and Davies 1995. McGraw-Hill. “3-D numerical modeling of ﬂow and sediment transport in rivers. the two-phase ﬂow solution of practical sediment problems. The basic idea behind the two-phase ﬂow approach e. J. R.105. and Diplas. 1995. These formulations allow different sizes to move at different rates. Lake MichiJOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2008 / 11 Downloaded 12 Jan 2010 to 140. Jain 1992. Karlsruhe. Future research should not only focus on the previously stated limitations but also on other cross-cutting issues such as reconciling different spatial and temporal scales and the capability of dynamically simulating bed evolution and sediment exchange processes between the sediment bed and the water column. V. D. 1995 . support team. 2005 . Francalanci and Solari 2007 provide the resting and moving periods of particles of different sizes and the lag coefﬁcient for the movement of different sediment fractions. respectively. J.. Onishi and Trent 1985 . 2005 . which routinely requires long-term simulations. Eng. “100 years of Danube morphology with SEDICOUP. even though the two-phase ﬂow approach seems promising. Professor Rick Luettich from the University of North Carolina. 2003. J. “Development and validation of an integrated exposure model for toxic chemicals in Green Bay. The stress between ﬂuid and sediment particles is usually neglected under the assumption that it is much smaller than the turbulent stress between ﬂuid particles. However. 2005a. The treatment of the dispersion and diffusion coefﬁcients as functions of the inner and outer variables. Lausanne in French . Ferguson et al.g. K.” J.g. 718–724. and the ECOMSED support team. “Simulation of solute transport in a mountain pool-and-rifﬂe stream: A transient storage model. KTH Land and Water Resources Engineering. new modeling paradigms such as artiﬁcial neural networks fuzzy logic. “Bed-load sediment transport in ephemeral and perennial gravel bed streams. its use and even the formulation of the governing equations in ﬂow-sediment problems are still in their infancy. 2007 .. Also. Anderson. This prob- ably explains a lingering doubt about the use of the two-phase ﬂow approach in the near-bed areas. 2005 .. 1983 . Elghobashi 1994. Drew 1983. 2005 . see http://pubs. Expressions developed for the traveling velocity of particles e. 133 4 . Price. Bommanna Krishnappan from the Aquatic Ecosystem Impacts Research Branch. is likely to be CPU-time-prohibitive even in the not-so-near future. et al. Attempts to connect sediment sources originating from the hill slopes and ﬂoodplains with in-stream processes are of paramount importance for minimizing error in the predictive ability of existing sediment transport models. the source term in the advection-diffusion equation does not account for the soil contributions from the bank or the terrestrial contributions from the hill slopes and ﬂoodplains Toda et al. Such modeling has to be based on a detailed knowledge of turbulence and requires presently unavailable experimental data.48. Toda et al. 2007 . namely. Sekine and Kikkawa 1992. Belleudy.” Report No. and remote sensing—need to be employed to address the connectivity between hill slopes and ﬂoodplains and instream processes.
Chang. Vicksburg. de Vries. F. J. R. Environmental Research Laboratory. “Modeling of river channel changes. Delft Hydraulics. “Dispersion simulation in two-dimensional tidal ﬂow. “Nonhydrostatic threedimensional model for hydraulic ﬂow simulation. HydroQual. Gloucester Point. 2000 . M.. and Risley. J. R. Fast3D user and programmer reference manual. Eng. Karim. Boris. “Scales of process. M. 2005a . Hydraul.” U. 37 4 .. “A description of a threedimensional coastal ocean circulation model. U. P. Res. “A ﬁnite element model for three dimensional hydrodynamic systems. A. Hydraul. B. L. ed.S.. S. “The TELEMAC modeling system. H.. “A two-dimensional model for simulating the transport and fate of toxic chemicals in a stratiﬁed reservoir.. “Application of 3D mobile bed. Process. Cao. Elghobashi. H.. and Usseglio-Polatera. H. C.. S.. 464–471. D. Delft3D users’ manual. Hydraul. 43. 12 / JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2008 Gomez. “Comparison of MOBED and HEC-6 river ﬂow models. Holly. “The impact of agricultural erosion processes upon 15N. “A three-dimensional environmental ﬂuid dynamics computer code: Theoretical and computational aspects.” J. Fox. A. 1985 . Chang. Lee. Fan. M. Mahwah. S.” J.. Inc. MIKE 21 short description.. S.. Church. 1982 . Duluth. “Gravitational effects on bed load transport at low Shields stress: Experimental observations. A. Texas A&M Univ. 111 4 . J.. 1–16. Landsberg. Crowe. Hydraul. L. of Iowa. and Mellor. 121 10 . Jacobsen.” Three-dimensional coastal ocean models.” Rep.” Hydrolog. F. Interagency Subcommittee Rep. 1975 . “IALLUVIAL: Analysis of sediment continuity and application to the Missouri River.9.. T. Bosboom. 12. Danish Hydraulic Institute. J. 2005b . Prepared for Southern California Edison Company. Lai. of Iowa.” J. M..” Special Rep. 620–632.. IAHR. X. C. X. 1981 . 1994 .” Proposal Submitted to the EPA by HSRC/ S&SW.. 2006 . DG-12 to the Commission of the European Communities. Iowa City.. M. B. D.. F. Eng. 23. Aarninkhof. R. and Yang. C. Walling. J. Iowa. Athens.. F. Wei. 3. “Eddy taxonomy around a submerged barb obstacle within a ﬁxed rough bed: A novel classiﬁcation methodology. Z.. 1992 . Res. H.” Earth Surf.. G. Edge. American Geophysics Union. R..” J. S. H. Roelvink. Processes Landforms. Generalized computer program: Users’ manual for FLUVIAL-12: Mathematical model for erodible channels.” J. non-uniform. W03424. I: Formulation and veriﬁcation.” J. The Netherlands. J. 644–658. Gravel-Bed Rivers Conf. 1082–1101. O. 2004 . I. N. Y. T. 1999 . Coastal. Lee. model theory. Univ. 131 10 . 2003 . ed. Rev.1–3. “Two-phase formulation of suspended sediment transport. Eng.gan. E. and Young. U. F. L. 737–749. 13C. Fluid Mech. Ferguson. 1998 . J. Francalanci. 1997 . W.. H. 1992 . 1984 . 1985 . J. 1161–1186. 1997 . Investigations Report 95-4284. Ga. Hydraul. Res. 1999 . Hydraul. M. A. Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research. H. “Modeling alluvial channels. Univ. 71s–81s. L. Drew. Reniers. “On predicting particle-laden turbulent ﬂows. 1. Eyrolles. F. 309–329. H.. “Sediment-laden ﬂow in open channels from two-phase ﬂow viewpoint. 4. A.. Eng. Eng. Chang. Delft Hydraulics.. Greimann. “Precipitation-runoff and streamﬂow-routing model for the Willamette River Basin. 11–43. Ishii. 14.... H. Gessler.. Danish Hydraulic Institute. No.. Eng. 725–735. Denver. 1988 . 1997 . 1985 . and Bates. 1990 . D. Harrison. Pub. Weber. T.. M. 2001 .. “EFDC1D: A One dimensional hydrodynamic and sediment transport model for river and stream networks. 1998 .” Water Resour.” Water Resour. Hørsholm. modes of analysis: multiples scales in rivers. “Use of composite ﬁngerprints to determine the provenance of the contemporary suspended sediment load transported by rivers. No. 1973 . Minn.asce. Hydraul. Inc. L. Hoey. J. and Vanoni. J.” Report No.48. D.0 model: Overview of formulations. Holly. C. 2003 . H.. M. Yang.” Rep. 1998 . Eng. 196–205. Troutt.. D. Chtchelkanova. Y. Fluid Mech. Qual. Hsieh. Scheefer.” Water Resour. and Holly. 1995 . and users guide. Geological Survey.” Technical Rep. P. T.. L. 1994 ..” J.. Hamrick. D.” Rep. Hydraulic Division.3.. Washington. Spasojevic. and Kjos. and Church. 52. 122 7 .. Oregon. 118 6 .” Can. B. J. Res... and Abaci. Chang. B. B. Iowa City. and Werritty. V..C. 22 9 . D. Prentice-Hall. J. Chaudhry. “Water and sediment routing through curved channels. Fox. H2305-42. 401–416. and Walstra.. The Netherlands.. 31–52. H. Y. 250. Va. H. CCIW. Miss. Illinois. 1993 .J. S.” Proc.. Y. F.. Eng. Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering. and Tu. King. G. 6th Int..” J. Holly.. Res. Symp. Gu. Res. Washington.” J. L.. A. C.. F. 1998 . “UNIBEST TC-2. Res. Hervouet. 1999 . Hydraul. Hall. J. Krishnappan. Iowa. San Diego. C. 38 5 . H. Eng. 25 6 . A. E... 381–388. U. 15. M. 28. M.. 1997 . Delft Hydraulics. Bloomer. 1983 . S. and C / N signatures of eroded-soil. H. EPA Ofﬁce of Science and Technology. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. to Waterways Experiment Station.. F. Heaps. M. Eng. Virginia Institute of Marine Science. Rev. 32. N. and Leeks. J. M.org/copyright . G. of Iowa. and U.” Rep. and Wang.. Ontario. M.. 292.” Water Resour. H.” Annu. “Note on lag in bed-load discharge. “CHARIMA: Numerical simulation of unsteady water and sediment movements in multiply connected networks of mobile-bed channels.105. Coastal and Estuarine Sciences.” J. A. 28 4 . Eng. Lind. Part 1: Numerical and physical principles. 2007 . M. J. Hydraul. Mech. G. Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research.” Rep.” Water Resour. 479– 500. Jia..” HydroQual. Papanicolaou.. and Rasmussen. F. 1996 . C. 125 7 .. Hydraul. Dawdy. J. 924–933. N. 110 7 .. and Xie. M. Paris. 1984 . V... Univ.. J.S. D. Vol. IAHR. and Chung. 1147. Pourtaheri. B. Papanicolaou. H. R.J. Sci. T. and Rahuel. “In-Situ containment and treatment: Engineering cap integrity and reactivity. “Development and application of a modeling framework to evaluate hurricane impacts on surﬁcial mercury concentrations in Lavaca Bay. mobile boundary ﬂow model—MOBED.. I.” Int. J. “Test and calibration of FLUVIAL-12 model using data from the San Dieguito River. River. National Water Research Institute. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. P. A. 1988 . Holly.” Appl. 317. 1989 . Civ. Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research. G.199. Army Corps of Engineers. 1990 . A.. 157–172. “Quasi– two-dimensional simulation of scour and deposition in alluvial chan- Downloaded 12 Jan 2010 to 140. P. 12. B.S. L. Krishnappan.. User’s manual: Unsteady..” Technical Rep. 905–926.. EPA National Exposure Research Laboratory. N. Muste. G. “Mathematical modeling of two-phase ﬂow. “New numerical/physical framework for mobile-bed modeling. J. and Einhellig. “MIKE 3 MT: A 3-dimensional mud transport model. 1996 . and Estuarine Morphodynamics. Hydraul.. hydrodynamics model.S.S. and Patel. S. Jain... L. “Numerical models for two-phase turbulent ﬂows. M. 125 9 .” J. Blumberg. 1986 . Karim. Environ.. “Numerical model for channel ﬂow and morphological change studies. B. Hsu. see http://pubs. and Chung..” Rep. 1987 . “An assessment of bed-load sediment transport formulae for gravel bed rivers. 261–291. 904–917. and Kennedy. Laenen. Hamrick. J. Delft Hydraulics Laboratory. Chang. and Raphelt. Schovarz. S. E. 1999 . on Sedimentation. 1993 ... 2002 . H. Iowa. Open channel ﬂow. N. M.. and Solari. J. “Numerical modeling for sediment-pass-through reservoirs. “Mobility of river tracer pebbles over different timescales.. M. 110 2 . M. Thermo-ﬂuid dynamic theory of two-phase ﬂow.. S. 129 3 . S.. Application of physical and mathematical models for river problems. Burlington. Collins. Iowa City.C. No. No. Denmark. J. L. for USEPA Large Lakes and Rivers Research Branch. A. “IALLUVIAL: A commuter based ﬂow and sediment routing for alluvial streams and its application to the Missouri River.” J. “Twelve selected computer stream sedimentation models developed in the United States.” J.” Annu. Yang. 343..
Knapp. 126 11 . G. 1998 . Young. Parker. 991–1000. HL-85-1. 4th Puget Sound Research Conf. Shuman. “A hydrologic and morphologic analysis of the Black Lake system. 24 1 . F. Chaudhry and L. M. Bureau of Reclamation. 228–244.” J. Hydraul. W.. Parker. Balkema.” Atmos. of Iowa. Boulder. M.. Patnaik. and Dancey. and Sanford. salinity. 1994 . New York. Bellingham. “SERATRA: User’s manual for the instream sediment-contaminant transport model. A. Eng. 116 4 ..” J. 28th IAHR Congress. Int. 131 10 . W.199. The Netherlands. Spasojevic. Z. “OTIS: One-dimensional transport with inﬂow and storage: A solute transport model for small streams. R. Fluid Mech. A. K.” J. and Yang. “2-D bed evolution in natural watercourses—new simulation approach. “Depth-average numerical modeling of ﬂow and sediment transport in the Elbe River.. Academic. 1183–1191. Q. Pullen. 38..” The changing coast.. Spasojevic. Onishi.. A. M. Miss. Res. G.org/copyright . and Broshears. 2005 . Balkema. Hih. F...asce.. Conf. 39. A.. Department of Interior.S. Symp. Hydraul.. G. 1998 . Seattle.. P.. Y. Iowa. 357–366. 42 4 . J.. Univ. “Sediment transport models and their testing. B. Hydraulic Engineering for Sustainable Water—Resources Management at the Turn of the Millennium.S. Papanicolaou. The Netherlands. A. Seminara. IAHR. Loose boundary hydraulics. and Scheffner. 2nd Ed. Kluwer Academic Publishers. F.. 2002 . Molinas. X.” Civil Engineering. U. H. Iowa City. “Modeling contaminated sediments. Eng. ed. R. A. Olsen. S. Battelle-Northwest. K. L.” Water Resour. M. T. “Turbulence characteristics of sediment-laden ﬂows in open channels. 326. Div.. 115. Chen... 123 7 . T. Instruction Rep. and Holly. 1990b . 1982 . 2003 . J. U. No. 1988 . Eng. Innovation 2D river-modeling instruments: Delft2DRivers. 131 11 . W. and Haidvogel. Papanicolaou. Storm water modeling.. Submitted to Chignik Regional Aquaculture Association. Tetra Tech. 1985 .” Contract Rep... Tannehill. Taylor & Francis Publisher.. Eng. P. R. Delft Hydraulics.. 4th Int. D. Comput. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. River training techniques: Fundamentals..” Proc. Papanicolaou. “2-D depth averaged model for the calculations of sediment transport and river-bed deformation. W. 2002 . H.. Computer program user’s manual for GSTARS. A. 2001 . Conf.” Rep. 1049– 1068. “Field data and 3D mobile-bed modeling: Help or hindrance?” Proc. Hydraul. Hydraul. “The role of near-bed turbulence structure in the inception of sediment motion. S. Rotterdam.” J. Simons. E. Verga. Nino.” Main Text. Elhakeem. J. and Meadows. L. Res. 4th Ed. and Kund. “A semi-implicit primitive equation ocean circulation model using a generalized topographyfollowing coordinate system.. Portugal.” J. Washington.” Proc. A.S. design and applications. 781–788. M. Coastal. D. “Three-dimensional CFD modeling of self-forming meandering channel. and Holly.. G. D. P. M. Paola. 39 7 . Univ. Thomas. “Tests of selected sediment-transport formulas. “River modeling. Runkel.” Proc. 1990a . on Hydroscience and Eng.” J. M. 1994 . coasts. Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research. Conf. Swarner. D. 1992 .” J. H. eds.” Technical Rep.. Spasojevic. Ruther. C. Mays.. “MOBED2: Numerical simulation of two-dimensional mobile-bed processes. W. ASCE. Overton.. 3rd Int. Y. and Wise. Boris. M... R. on Reﬁned Flow Modeling and Turbulence Measurements. 1999 .. Hydraul.. The Netherlands. “ADCIRC: An advanced three-dimensional circulation model for shelves.. T.. 366–372. Phys. 2006 . Huang. C. J. 2005 .” Proc. 1989 . Computational ﬂuid mechanics and heat transfer.. “Predicting longitudinal dispersion coefﬁcient in natural streams by artiﬁcial neural network..” Proc. K. and Simons. and Garcia.. and Hamrick. “Three-dimensional simulation of ﬂow. 1991 . Washington. and Kikkawa. Berlin. 2006 . A. B. and McAnally.” J. “Three-dimensional numerical simulation of mobile-bed hydrodynamics. 129 5 .. Zhou. Papanicolaou. 1976 .. 2004 . Y. Paciﬁc Northwest Laboratory. F. K. N.. eds. 118 4 . 2000 .. Rotterdam. J. 285–319. J. Miss. Balkema... EUROCOAST. R.C. Mech.” J.. and Singh. 66 9 . Eng. S. Hydraul. 197. Spasojevic. M. M..” J. J. Mahesh..” Technical Report No. C. ASCE Hydraul. 2004 . Martins.. WaJOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2008 / 13 Downloaded 12 Jan 2010 to 140. B. and Pilarczyk. C... W.. 1992 . H. C. 1996 . Reston. C... ASCE. 1997 . DRP-92-6. 215–240.105.” J. J. 1992 . Ni. 1995 . L.. Waterway.” Fluid Dyn. and radionuclide movements in the Hudson River estuary. Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor complex framework for calculating TMDLs. Onishi. “Simulating water quality in the Duwamish Estuary and Elliott Bay: Comparing effects of CSOs and other sources.” Water Resour.” Technical Rep. 1996 . and Pletcher. 127 3 . D. R. Anderson. Engineering Research Center. Wash. and Holly.. Onishi... E.” J. 971–988. San Diego. and Rodi. F. “DNS and LES of some engineering ﬂows.. 1994 ... Lyn. W... T. Eng. Olsen.” Proc. Nicollet. Tayfur. Y. C. M. Sloff. J. 211–219.. Eng. and Moin.” HYDROSOFT 94. 1998 . Vicksburg. Greece. 118 7 . R. B. see http://pubs. Wash. M. “Experiments on particle-turbulence interactions in the near-wall region of an open channel ﬂow: Implications for sediment transport. 281–312. “Sediment transport and coastline development along the Caspian Sea.nels. 2005 . on Hydroinformatics.” Recent advances in hydraulic physical modeling—Series A: Applied science. 91-01. Y. A. 425–443. Lienau. 1985 .. New York. 73–75. Bdour.. “Mechanics of saltating grains II.. Va. Blazejeweki. “A comparison of contaminant plume statistics from a Gaussian puff and urban CFD model for two large cities.S. M. M.C. R. 45–56. R. on Hydraulic Measurements and Experimental Methods. G. Port. K. Song. and Maraghei. B. “A numerical method for large eddy simulation in complex geometries. Diplas. Minh Duc. R.” Flow modeling and turbulence measurements VI. “SSIIM: A three-dimensional numerical model for simulation of water and sediment ﬂow. Raudkivi. “Probabilistic Exner sediment continuity equation for mixture with no active layer. N. of Colorado. Wenka. J. Pavlovic. Hydraul. Otto. and estuaries: Report 1.. J. Przedwojski. A. N. Rodi.. D. A. R. 362–379. J. D. U. N. J. Conf. R. and Bergs. and Strom. and Iselin. 1996 . Hydraul. U. “Flow processes in a curved alluvial channel. Res. 2000 . Nakato.. Schock.. 2003 . Environ. Eng. G. M.” Computer modeling of free-surface and pressurized ﬂows.” J.. 344. PB-83-122739. S. sediment. Luettich. Eng... “Numerical modeling of long term effect of rehabilitation measures on bedload transport. V. “Numerical simulation of sedimentation using a two-ﬂuid model of turbulent liquid solid ﬂows. Iowa. Rotterdam. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.. Vicksburg. 1988 . “A numerical model for the study of sediment transport in steep mountain streams. S.. Comput. “Bedload at low Shields stress on arbitrarily sloping beds. Richland. T. Government. 1985 . 536–558.48..” J. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. P.. Tetra Tech. Y. and Zhou. and Wicklein. Porto Carras. D. D. Sekine. and Solari. and Olsen. Odgaard. 818–826. J. alternative entrainment formulation. 145–173. 600–609. 917–920. and Misic. and Leclair. 1986 . J. ASCE/ EWRI and IAHR Int. H. theory and methodology of ADCIRC-2DDI and ADCIRC-3DL. 1994 . “Users manual for the generalized computer program system open-channel ﬂow and sedimentation— TABS-2. Hydraul... Balakrishnan. Bandar Nowshahr area. Constantinescu.” CADSWES Technical Rep. 2004 . E. G. M. 2004 .. and Holly. Westerink. 116 3 . HL-94-2... Munger. Niyyati. E.. Zhong. N.. E.. Ocean Eng. A. Colo. Res. H.. and Trent.. Wash. Philadelphia. N. “Bedload predictions by using the concept of particle velocity: Applications. 1095–1100. A. Phys. A. L.. “Three-dimensional modeling of sediment transport in a narrow 90° channel bend.
“Mathematical model of scour and deposition. PNL-9980. “Sediment and radionuclide transport in rivers. “Modeling of pollutant and suspended-sediment transport with Argos Modeling System. C. Zeng. 1996 . Kumagai.. 48 9 . J.. and Wang. “A multi size. Idaho. Department of Interior.. Army Corps of Engineers. U..” ISOPE Ocean Mining Symp. 1985 ... Hydraul. 1993 .S. 1977 . V. Usseglio-Polatera. 1985 . 601–609. Conf. Int. U.. Villaret. J. Denver. Y. C. The Netherlands. van Rijn.” 31st Int. Paciﬁc Northwest Lab. No.. Pergamon Press. Eng. Voitsekhovitch.” Proc. Y. sediment transport and bed morphology in open channels. Japan. 1982 . 2000 . “Effects of ﬂood ﬂow on ﬂood plain soil and riparian vegetation in gravel river.” Proc.. “Numerical modeling of sediment transport caused by deep sea mining.K. S. 2005 . L. Phase 2: Field sampling program for Cattaraugus and Buttermilk Creeks. Wash. Ecker. Zheleznyak. G. W. L. Ikeda. and Wenka. 2005 . Yang. 1994 . 4–15.. Conf. S. P.” Technical Rep. No.org/copyright . “A fully 3D nonhydrostatic model for prediction of ﬂow. Walters. Wu. Technical Service Center. W. “3D numerical modeling of ﬂow and sediment transport in open channels. C..” Rijskwaterstaat communications. during the 1993 summer ﬂood. 1998 .” Elwha Technical Series PN-95-9. Paciﬁc Northwest Region. M. Spaulding and H. “A depthaveraged 2-D model for ﬂow. Constantinescu.” Appl. Association Hydraulic Research Congress. U. 1972 . and Onishi. C. 1613–1641. “Modeling sediment-turbulent ﬂow interactions.” J.. and Onishi. W. Toda.. 131 11 . 14 / JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2008 Downloaded 12 Jan 2010 to 140. Thomas.. and Bedford. Mech. J. Rodi. G.. K. S. Y. W. U. sediment transport and bed topography in curved channels with riparian vegetation.” Technical Rep. Z2378. K.105. of Estuarine and coastal modeling. M. van Rijn.. 15.199.” Final Rep. and Aarninkhof. Pa. and Davies. L.S. van Rijn. Div. C. Boise. Hydraul. Vicksburg. 2000 . Guo. Region III.S. multi source formulation for determining impacts of sediments on near-shore sensitive sites... Principles of sediment transport in rivers estuaries and coastal seas.. J. 6th Int.. 1999 . Bennett. L. J. J.1 (Generalized stream tube model for alluvial river simulation version 2. Tsukuba. M. 1995 . Wu...S.” J.. Wash. 2000 . on Numerical and Hydraulic Modeling of Ports and Harbors. S. Miss. Zielke. Sundermann.. and Prashum. A. and Segschneider. 1995 .48. J. USEPA. V. A.. Res. and Tan. Delft Institute of Hydraulics.. S.” Water Resour. “Sediment analysis and modeling of the river erosion alternative... see http://pubs. Richland. D. New York. “Hydrodynamic and water quality model of Christina River Basin. J. 41.. Bureau of Reclamation.. Richland. and Cunge... Bureau of Reclamation. PNL-3117. Walstra. D. Jankowski. Seoul. W. O... M. C. 110 11 .. I. T. Birmingham. U. Butler. The Netherlands. F. and Simões. Eng. Aqua Publications. Users’ manual for GSTARS 2. “Cher- nobyl nuclear accident hydrologic analysis and emergency evaluation of radionuclide distributions in the Dnieper River. Paciﬁc Northwest Lab. Rev. “Sand transport at the lower shoreface of the Dutch coast. W. Korea. L. Velissariou. 2.. M. Ukraine. Philadelphia.1).” Technical Rep. eds. Y. 950–960.” J. Velissariou. Mechanics of sediment transport. F. No. L. S. 41. and Weber.. “Sutrench model: Twodimensional vertical mathematical model for sedimentation in dredged channels and trenches by currents and waves. A. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. T. Hydr.asce. G. J. A. L.terways Experiment Station. 126 1 . Shields. Environmental Protection Agency. J. and Asano. 2005 . Yalin. A. H. R.. T. Vol.